1 2025:CGHC:59628-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 905 of 2025 Lambodar Shyam S/o Tikait Ram Aged About 43 Years R/o Vishrampur Gevra Basti, Ps- Kusmunda, Post- Kusmunda, Tehsil- Dipka, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. Through Chairman-Cum Managing Director, South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Standing Committee On Pap Through General Manager (P And P), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area, District- Korba (C.G.) 3. General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area, District- Korba (C.G.) 4. Staff Officer South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area, District- Korba (C.G.) 5. Krishna Kumar S/o Ramcharan R/o Village- Durpa, Mongrabhatha, District- Korba, Through General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents/ SECL : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpayee, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.12.10 10:20:36 +0530 2 Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge 09.12.2025 1. The appellant/ writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 10.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 11551 of 2025 by which, the learned Single Judge has disposed off the petition filed by the writ petitioner. 2. The present writ appeal has been filed with the following prayer:- “A. That the judgment and order dated 10.10.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench of this Hon'ble High Court, in Writ Petition (S) No. Versus South 11551/2025 in the case of Lambodar Shyam Eastern Coalfieldslimited and others, may kindly be set aside and the writ appeal filed by the Appellant may be allowed, in the interest of justice. B. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the Appellant for grant of employment as per nomination in lieu of his land acquired by the respondents in accordance with the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of State. C. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant appeal granting the reliefs as prayed in the writ petition in the interest of justice.” 3. The learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order dated 3 10.10.2025 and the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:- “ XXX 5. From bare perusal of the documents annexed with the writ petition, it is quite vivid that respondent No. 5 was given employment in the year 1996 and during said period of 29 years, the petitioner has written a complaint on 10.12.2021 to the Police but has not approached before this Court for challenging the appointment order of respondent No. 5. 6. Considering this aspect of the matter that the petitioner slept over his right for such a long period, though for filing Writ Court there is no limitation provided under the Constitution of India but delay in filing the writ petition may be ground to deny the equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and even the petitioner has made complaint on 10.12.2021 i.e. after lapse of 25 years which shows that the petitioner was not vigilant towards his right and keeping well settled position of law in mind that delay defeats justice, I am of the view that on the count of delay and laches, the instant petition deserved to dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. 7. However, the pendency of criminal cases or any other proceedings has not been adversely affected by dismissal of the writ petition as this Court has only 4 examined the case of the petitioner for getting employment after lapse of 29 years. 8. With this observation and direction, the instant petition is disposed of.” 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order suffers from serious errors, as the learned Single Bench failed to appreciate that the appellant’s cause of action arose only upon the respondents’ rejection order dated 11.04.2025, since no earlier order concerning his pending claim had ever been passed. It is contended that the claim could not have been challenged earlier and therefore dismissal on the ground of delay or laches is wholly unsustainable. Counsel further submits that the appellant’s right crystallized afresh upon discovery of the fraudulent employment obtained by one Krishna Kumar, which was officially confirmed by revenue authorities, and which demonstrated that no legitimate member of the appellant’s family whose land had been acquired ever received employment. The authorities themselves, including the Additional Collector and revenue officials, have verified that the acquired land (Khasra No. 107/3, area 0.70 acre, Village Durpa) belonged to the appellant’s father, Tikait Ram, thereby affirming the appellant’s rightful entitlement under the rehabilitation policy. It is urged that the Single Bench overlooked the fact that the appellant had been continuously pursuing his claim since 2004, and that the respondents’ own inaction and the fraud 5 committed by Krishna Kumar (respondent No.5) caused the delay. The rejection orders dated 12.03.2025 and 11.04.2025, passed without proper application of mind despite full documentation by the appellant, were erroneously upheld. Counsel contends that once compensation for the acquired land was accepted acknowledging Tikait Ram as landowner, the respondents are estopped under the doctrine of promissory estoppel from denying employment to his heir. Reliance is also placed on the coordinate Bench judgment in Smt. Nirmala Devi v. SECL (WPS No. 4156/2017, decided on 01.07.2025), which granted similar relief despite delay, holding that procedural technicalities cannot defeat the legitimate entitlement of land-losers. Thus, it is submitted that the dismissal of the writ petition on the sole ground of delay and laches that too without appreciating material findings of the Collector and SDO as well as the larger principles of fairness and justice underlying rehabilitation policy, has resulted in grave injustice to the appellant. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/SECL opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant and submits that the appellant’s claim of having pursued his case since 2004 is wholly unsubstantiated, as no documentary material has been placed on record to support such an assertion. It is contended that the present dispute has arisen only after the death 6 of Krishna Kumar (respondent No.5) on 25-5-2014, who had been granted employment, and not due to any action or inaction of the respondents. Counsel further submits that although the land in question admittedly belonged to the father of the appellant, neither the father of the appellant nor Krishna Kumar are alive today to verify the facts as alleged by the appellant, making his claims unverifiable. It is further submitted that employment was granted to respondent No. 5 in the year 1996 in respect of the same land bearing Khasra No. 107/3, area 0.70 acre, and yet the appellant did not approach any authority for nearly 29 years. Such an extraordinary and unexplained delay, according to the respondents, renders the present appeal hopelessly barred by limitation. Therefore, it is urged that the learned Single Judge has rightly disposed of the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches, and the impugned order warrants no interference. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 7. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the records, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The material placed on record clearly reveals that employment was granted to respondent No. 5 in the year 1996, and despite the passage of nearly 29 years, the appellant did not approach any competent authority or Court to 7 challenge such appointment. The appellant has also failed to substantiate his claim of having pursued the matter since 2004, as no documentary evidence has been produced in support thereof. The so-called cause of action based on alleged fraud is also not supported by contemporaneous material, particularly when both the father of the appellant and Krishna Kumar are no longer alive to affirm or clarify the facts. In respect of death of Krishna Kumar, a copy of death certificate has been produced before this Court during the course of argument, which is taken on record. 8. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the delay is not only inordinate but wholly unexplained, and such extraordinary laches disentitle the appellant to any equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge, therefore, rightly held that “delay defeats justice,” and dismissed the petition on this ground alone. This Court finds no infirmity, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. 9. Further, the scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is limited to cases where the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti